A framework for customer relationship management strategy orientation support in higher education institutions Article

Accepted Version

Khashab, B., Gulliver, S. R. and Ayoubi, R. M. (2020) A framework for customer relationship management strategy orientation support in higher education institutions. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28 (3). pp. 246-265. ISSN 1466-4488 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2018.1522363 Available at https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/79214/

It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing .

To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2018.1522363

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement .

www.reading.ac.uk/centaur

CentAUR

Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online

1

A Framework for Customer Relationship Management Strategy

Orientation Support in Higher Education Institutions

Abstract

A number of generic CRM implementation frameworks have been developed, yet no

systematic framework has been developed to help HEIs orientate CRM strategy to align with

university business strategies and stakeholder needs. This research iteratively develops the

CRM Strategy Orientation Support (CRM-SOS) framework, which aims to support HEIs in

orientating their strategic CRM system at the pre-implementation stage and align CRM strategy

with the business strategy; thus, reducing the chance that HEIs will experience CRM

implementation failure. To reach our proposed CRM-SOS framework, we employed Design

Science Research (DSR) methodology steps (Vaishnavi and Kuechler 2004) by analysing UK

HEIs specific CRM implementation case studies, conducting semi-structured HEIs-based

interviews, followed by evaluation of the resulted framework by HEI Information Systems (IS)

experts. We concluded with a new CRM-SOS framework for HEIs consisting of five stages.

The framework can be used to personalise the stages until they fit the strategic outputs and

match the top management KPIs. Although existing research agrees that intensive attention

should be given to CRM planning, there is no consensus or developed framework, for use

within HEIs, demonstrating how CRM strategy can be orientated to align with university

strategies and customer needs.

Keywords: Customer Relationship Management (CRM), CRM Strategy, CRM frameworks,

Higher Education, UK universities.

2

1. Introduction

Use of CRM technology solutions is becoming a strategic must-have in HEIs. Daradoumis et

al. (2010) stated that increased domain competition has forced non-profit firms, such as

universities, to firstly offer a more customer-centric approach, secondly to deliver higher

quality services (Neville et al. 2002), and finally consider the adoption of CRM systems (Wali

and Wright 2016, Rigo et al 2016, Wali et al. 2015, Mellors-Bourne et al. 2014, Perry et al.

2011, Seeman and O’Hara 2006, Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka 2006, Neville et al. 2005). HEIs,

especially those that want to compete internationally, need to restructure their organisations,

adjust their business models, and modernise their processes to align with customer needs.

Despite confused and often conflicting understandings within HEIs, interest in CRM has

soared. Perry et al. (2011) stated that university staff should all understand and communicate

using CRM. Seeman and O’Hara (2006) claimed that implementing CRM within the university

improves management of customer data process, raises student-oriented focus and increases

student retention, loyalty and satisfaction with the university’s services. Biczysko (2010)

highlighted that by conducting frequent surveys to measure the students’ satisfaction and

reacting immediately to their demands, student retention can be significantly improved; which

is of significant financial value to management. Consequently, institutions are increasingly

using CRM technology solutions to facilitate client/university interactions and enable HEI

senior managers to monitor day to day operations (Rigo et al. 2016, Kumar 2010, Binsardi and

Ekwulugo 2003).

To date, there has been much confusion, in both commercial and academic domains, as to

exactly “what CRM includes?”. Researchers view CRM as a synthesis between: philosophy

and IT (Magana and Whitehead 2010); IT and strategy (Payne 2005), human, technical and

business capabilities (Coltman, 2007); process, IT and people (Greenberg 2010); and business

strategy, IT, and process (Buttle and Maklan 2015). There is, however, increasing evidence

that CRM success can only be achieved if CRM is seen as a critical business strategy (Cambra-

Fierro et al. 2017, Buttle and Maklan 2015, Gummesson 2009, Thakur et al. 2006, Lindgreen

et al. 2006, Payne and Frow 2005, Bligh and Turk 2004, Leigh and Tanner 2004, Leigh and

Tanner 2004, Rigby and Ledingham 2004), and that CRM software technologies should only

be implemented to facilitate that CRM strategy. Although existing research agrees that

intensive attention should be given to CRM planning, there is no consensus or developed

framework, for use within HEIs, demonstrating how CRM strategy can be orientated to align

with university strategies and customer needs. There is, however, limited research supporting

HEIs in how CRM should be strategically implemented to support alignment of CRM strategy

with university activity and customer needs.

In HEIs, we see the concept of value as different from commercial businesses. HEIs are largely

unable to segment ‘customers’ in terms of ‘profit’ key performance indicators, and the concept

of ‘valuable customer’ depends significantly on the business to the business domain. HEIs are

considered to be ‘non-profit organisations’ with a primary focus on providing high-quality

education and producing knowledge - rather than profit to shareholders. Accordingly, we view

the output focus and use of CRM in HEIs to be likely different from commercial business.

Accordingly, this study will address this problem and develop a framework to support CRM

strategy orientation in HEIs for strategic purposes.

3

2. Generic CRM Implementation Models

Within the commercial domain, considerable literature emphasises the importance of the pre-

implementation phase on CRM strategy orientation. In 2001, Gartner introduced the ‘Eight

Building Blocks of CRM’ (Kirkby 2002). The Gartner model guides CRM implementation

towards success by ensuring inclusion of works, and consideration of critical success factors

(Almotairi 2010). The Gartner model states that CRM goals must be specific and measurable,

i.e. timely and achievable, and highlights the necessity of assessing the company’s existing

competencies. Gartner’s framework considers the development of the CRM vision and use of

internal education, yet the framework fails to consider critical success and failure factors

(Almotairi 2010). Payne and Frow (2005) proposed a strategic CRM framework that

emphasised the importance of strategy. Despite highlighting the importance of developing and

implementing CRM strategies, Payne and Frow failed to mention how the business strategy or

customer strategy could be assessed and/or analysed, and how the stakeholder requirements

could be elicited and analysed. Thakur et al. (2006) considered the reasons of approaching

CRM as a strategy, and defined a diverse range of critical success factors in their model,

however failed to link the model to the customer’s needs and/or consider the customer life

cycle, and did not provide any guidelines on how strategy can be orientated. Magana and

Whitehead (2010) described CRM implementation stages, and emphasised the need to consider

people and management issues. They stated that an enterprise should undertake CRM

implementation to meet measurable CRM shortcomings in the business process. Despite their

attention to strategy, they neglected to consider CRM strategy needs in terms of the common

CRM components (i.e. people, process and technology).

The Relationship Management Model (IDIC) was developed as a relationship creation model

and suggests that enterprises should undertake four interrelated implementation tasks in order

to create one-to-one relationships; resulting in superior customers value (Peppers and Rogers

2004). The tasks are: i) identify customer needs; ii) differentiate valuable customers; iii)

interact with customers to understand customer expectations, i.e. complex desires, wants, and

preferences, and their relationships with other suppliers or brands; iv) customise the offer, and

communications, to ensure that the expectations of customers are met. Although the IDIC

model mentions segmentation as an important part of CRM strategy, i.e. treating customers

differently based on their value and needs, no discussion is given to how the value, or customer

needs, is measured, and the authors do not provide any guidelines and/or detailed steps as to

how CRM strategy can be orientated. They further neglected essential issues concerning: CRM

strategy, consideration of Critical Success Factors (CSFs), current CRM situation analysis,

how customer requirements link to the CRM solution types like collaborative and strategic

CRM types, and how the CRM solution links to the customer life cycle. Alternatively, Buttle

and Maklan (2015) defined five iterative high-level phases. Their model aims to minimise

errors and define training needs; while maximising benefits for all stakeholders when rolling

out the successful CRM. They highlighted the significance of change, project and risk

management when delivering customer’s needs into desired products and services, and

addressed a number of drawbacks raised in other frameworks, yet did not justify the use of

their criteria or define the connection to CRM components (i.e. people, technology and

processes). Although CRM implementation frameworks have been developed, a number of

problems were identified (see Table 1).

4

Str

ate

gic

ori

enta

tio

n

Str

uct

ure

d

Sta

ges

CS

Fs

Cu

rren

t C

RM

sit

ua

tio

n

An

aly

sis

Met

ho

ds

of

an

aly

sis

Mo

st i

mp

lem

enta

tio

n

sta

ge

focu

s

Ven

do

r

C

ust

om

er l

ife c

ycl

e

CR

M f

ou

r ty

pes

Ali

gn

men

t w

ith

bu

sin

ess

stra

teg

y

K

PIs

Gartner, 2001 x Pre-implementation x

x

Payne and Frow,

2005

Pre-implementation x

Magana and

Whitehead, 2010

x Pre-implementation

IDIC Model, 2004 x Pre-implementation

Thakur et al., 2006 x Pre-implementation

Buttle and

Maklan, 2015

x x x Pre-implementation x x x x

Table 1: Comparisons of CRM implementation models

3. Review of CRM Strategy Orientation Studies in HE

HEIs are complex organizations, offering a wide range of services and involving a multiplicity

of stakeholders; both in terms of type and number (Saiti and Prokopiadou 2008). HEIs are

distinct from other types of organizations; possessing a high degree of specialization in both

organizational structure and service provision (Mattheou and Saiti 2005). Unlike most

companies, in HEIs, the output product is commonly the customer (Kotler and Fox 1985).

Defining quality in HEIs is very difficult due to the multiplicity of stakeholders, and satisfying

the conflicting needs of HEIs’ customer groups and stakeholders is complex; since different

groups often demand conflicting business outcomes (Lagrosen et al. 2004, Harvey and Knight

1996, Green 1994). However, universities need to address the possible effect of narrowing the

scope of their CRM activity to focus directly on the customers that matter most and are likely

to bring a return on investments (O‘Regan 2010). Grant and Anderson (2002) believed that

integrating CRM within processes can help universities gain a 360 view of their customers,

and can aid efficiency improvements in key activities, i.e. increasing revenue through

improving retention recruitment rates, reduce recruiting costs, enhanced customer service and

customer satisfaction, enabling universities to concentrate on customer-centricity and quality

improvements (Hanover 2010).

Due to the high level of customer interaction in HEIs, applying CRM solutions facilitates

managing interactions and touch points across multiple communication channels (Lávanya

2011). Many USA HEIs have gained considerable benefits from using CRM (Seligman and

Taylor 2009). For example, Seeman and O’Hara (2006) considered that the implementation of

CRM at North Carolina Community College has improved management of customer data

process; increased student-oriented focus; increased student retention; and a growth in student

loyalty and satisfaction concerning the university’s educational programs and services.

Biczysko (2010) stated that DePaul University (USA) used CRM systems effectively to

enhance student retention and help identify students at risk of dropping out from the university.

They conducted frequent surveys via E-mail to measure students’ satisfaction and reacted

immediately to their demands. Consequently, student retention in this university increased by

four per cent (Biczysko 2010).

5

UK HEIs find themselves under increasing pressure to manage existing spending, to facilitate

the extra benefits required to balance the value equation (value = benefits/sacrifice) (Binsardi

and Ekwulugo 2003, Grant and Anderson 2002). Kaiser et al. (1999) stated that HEIs are

increasingly looking to adopt market orientation activities, to attract, interact with, retain, and

serve their customers efficiently and effectively, which requires them to embrace innovative

solutions if they are going to continue to build effective relationships and improve the value

perception of their customers. Kumar (2010) stated that, in HEIs, this issue is compounded by

institutions adopting new modes of teaching, such as e-learning, franchised and overseas

degree programmes; that reduce face-to-face interaction and increase the complexity of

managing the customer experience (Grant and Anderson 2002).

Conducting research on the international students' perception of UK HEIs, Binsardi and

Ekwulugo (2003) concluded that the best conversion towards satisfying students’ needs was

achieved by managing the relationships with alumni, friends, relatives, local

universities/colleges, the British Council, and media providers. Seligman and Taylor (2009)

scrutinised the current and possible CRM applications in UK universities and revealed that the

use of technologies was limited, and there was a dearth of management understanding of CRM

solution functionality. They indicated that the administrative staff at UK universities attempt

to satisfy their students and stakeholders, but current weak and/or inconsistent systems are

limiting potential benefits. Using semi-structured interviews at five of the top universities in

Sweden, 10% of all Swedish universities, Bagheri and Beheshti (2010) proposed a conceptual

CRM model for use by Swedish universities, which can help the marketing department at the

recruitment stage of the student lifecycle; yet ignores other university activity and/or other parts

of the customer lifecycle. Daradoumis et al. (2010) proposed a generic CRM framework, for

use by non-profit organisations, which specifically considered CRM application use in the field

of e-learning monitoring system, however their framework viewed CRM as purely an

application solution, rather than strategy.

Haywood et al. (2007) revealed that the use of CRM implementation within UK HEIs to

support BCE (Business and Community Engagement)/ knowledge transfer activities is still

under-developed and that CRM systems are not strategically considered, and therefore suffer

from a poor level of CRM consolidation with other inbound systems. UK HEIs, as claimed by

Haywood et al. (2007), involve three customer interaction levels: operational, which manages

customer accounts and contacts; tactical, to notify service enhancement and delivery; and

strategic to inform better strategic decisions at the institutional level. Haywood et al. (2007)

found that UK HEIs are willing to expand their CRM implementations, i.e. moving towards

strategic, however very few UK HEIs have decided to deploy strategic systems (Haywood et

al. 2007). Many UK universities that have made the decision to implement CRM still focus

largely at the operational level.

While Grant and Anderson (2002) introduced different CRM systems’ definitions in the

academic area based on a range of HEI customers’ viewpoints (student, staff and university

management), Chambers and Paull (2008) found that these systems in UK universities are not

strategically integrated, and are instead made up of separate sub-systems, each dealing with

processes, decision-makers, information streams relating to its particular purpose.

Accordingly, Biczysko (2010) proposed key changes that must be considered for HEIs to

6

benefit from CRM systems implementation including mainly a focus on comprehensive

integration of processes and gathered information across the whole university.

Although CRM solutions are widely adopted in the business world, and reports on CRM

solutions use are normally available in literature (Nair et al. 2007), only a limited number of

studies discuss CRM use in HEIs (e.g. Bagheri and Beheshti 2010, Biczysko 2010, Daradoumis

et al. 2010, Grant and Anderson 2002), there is limited research considering how CRM should

be strategically implemented within HEIs (Daradoumis et al. 2010, Hemsley-Brown and

Oplatka 2006), and the research that does exist is generic in nature (e.g. Grant and Anderson

2002), and does not provide in-depth frameworks of how CRM strategy can be practically

oriented and applied to maximise benefit in HEIs.

The most useful basis for UK HEI CRM is the three-part JISC project, entitled Relationship

Management Programme, which studied CRM implementation in UK HEIs. The first part

considered BCE and focused on business process change. The second part looked at Student

Lifecycle Relationship Management (SLRM) and focused on improving student experiences

and how effectiveness and efficacy can be improved by placing the student at the centre of all

processes. The third part was focused on alumni projects liaison with different university areas

(www.jisc.ac.uk). However, limited specific analysis of the 27 specific cases (13 BCE, 7

SLRM and 7 alumni projects) was provided. In the same context, previous research fails to

mention how stakeholder activity and requirements can be linked to CRM solution types, and

no structured approach has been suggested for use within UK HEIs demonstrating how CRM

strategy can be orientated to align with university strategies and customer needs.

4. DSR Methodology of developing CRM framework

In order to develop our proposed CRM framework, we iteratively adopt Design Science

Research (DSR) methodology steps proposed by Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2004) (see Figure

1a). By considering generic CRM implementation frameworks, and by paying special attention

to strategy orientation, we define a theoretical framework (Artefact 1 – Generic Theoretical

Artefact). Evaluation of Artefact 1 is carried out by analysing HEI specific CRM

implementation case studies and 10 semi-structured HEI-based interviews, i.e. to better

understand the specific issues impacting CRM implementations in HEIs (Artefact 2 –

Theoretical HEI CRM strategy Orientation Framework). Artefact 2 is developed to support

HEI domain specific CRM strategy orientation framework. Five HEI Information Systems

experts evaluated Artefact 2, and relevant changes are made; thus, supporting formation of our

final artefact (Artefact 3), the CRM-SOS framework (see Figure 1b for steps of developing

CRM-SOS framework). Ethical approval was gained prior to conducting all interviews and

focus groups. Participants were clearly provided information about the aim of the research

objectives and notified that although the session would be documented, all responses would be

analysed anonymously and kept secure. All relevant interviews’ quotations are presented in the

following sections.

7

Figure 1a: DSR methodology, adopted from Vaishnavi and Kuechler (2004).

8

Artefact 1 – Generic Theoretical Artefact Phase One - Adapting ‘Develop CRM Strategy’

Step 1: Identify stakeholders/CRM education plan

Step 2: Diagnose current CRM strategy

Step 3: Formulate goals and objectives

Step 4: Identify critical success and failure factors (CSFFs)

Step 5: Develop the CRM value statement

Phase Two - Establish the CRM Strategy Support

Foundations

Step 1: Stakeholder analysis and governance structures

Step 2: ‘To-Be’ requirements based-strategy analysis elicitation

Step 3: Objective gap analysis level (validating the

requirements)

Step 4: Process mapping/requirements modelling

Step 5: Identify change management needs

Step 6: Identify project management needs and business case

Step 7: Develop risk management plan

Step 8: Revise plan and determine technology needs

Artefact 2 – Theoretical HEI

CRM- Strategy Orientation

Framework

(CRM Document Analysis and

Interview Feedback) Step 1: Scoping CRM strategy stage

Step 2: Analysing CRM requirements in

HEIs

Step 3: Modelling the strategic DENs

Step 4: Diagnosing service quality (bottom-

up) for strategic DEN in HEIs

Step 5: Mapping/matching CRM solution

types with defined Gaps

Artefact 3 –

Evaluated

HEI CRM

Strategy

Orientation

Framework

(Expert focus

group)

A

Framework

for Customer

Relationship

Management

Strategy

Orientation

Support in

HEIs

Figure 1b: Steps of developing CRM-SOS Framework

9

5. Steps of developing CRM-SOS Framework

5.1.Artefact 1 – Generic Theoretical Artefact

Phase One - Adapting ‘Develop CRM Strategy’

Phase one within Buttle and Maklan original framework (Buttle and Maklan 2015), entitled

‘Develop CRM Strategy’, was reorganised, modified, and/or expanded. We chose their

framework as a starting point in developing our framework as their model is the most relevant,

recent and complete model that aims at minimizing errors and defining training needs;

maximizing benefits for all stakeholders; and addressing a number of drawbacks raised in

previous frameworks. The following sections describe the adapted steps in more detail (see

Figure 2), providing justification for why each step has changed.

Figure 2: Phase One Adapting ‘developCRM Strategy’.

Phase 1, Step 1: Identify stakeholders/CRM education plan

Buttle and Maklan (2015) did not consider stakeholder identification during phase one;

accordingly, we added this step to explicitly define stakeholders; ensuring that leadership

commitment and employee involvement can be sought at the project start. Stakeholder

identification will help the organisation to identify those influencing, or influenced by, project

outcomes. Once the CRM stakeholders have been identified, it is important that education and

communication with stakeholders are prioritised to ensure CRM benefits are practically

realised. CRM education is included as part of the first step, however, on-going education

should be undertaken as required.

Phase 1, Step 2: Diagnose current CRM strategy

No CRM solution can be proposed unless the current activity and/or problems are properly

understood. Situational analysis and requirements analysis is therefore important to CRM

strategy definition (Chen and Popovich 2003). Performing situation analysis ensures that the

organisation can make an informed decision concerning the CRM solution. Consequently, we

include Buttle and Maklan step of “Set priorities” as step 2, i.e. named ‘Diagnose current CRM

Strategy’; allowing us to identify current CRM processes, people, technologies and channels,

and assign gaps a specific CRM solution type (i.e. operational, analytical, strategic and

collaborative).

10

Phase 1, Step 3: Formulate goals and objectives

Greenberg (2010) stated that the pre-implementation phase is critically important, and that

setting objectives is key for CRM strategy development. Our framework proposes that goals

and objectives will emerge by applying situational and gap analysis, which allows us to define

areas where value can be gained for key stakeholders. When all gaps have been prioritised, and

allocated, CRM goals and objectives can be formulated defining what CRM solution types are

required and where change should be focused.

Phase 1, Step 4: Identify critical success and failure factors (CSFFs)

Buttle and Maklan approach (2015) didn’t support an awareness of critical failure factors, even

though numerous researchers (Magana and Whitehead 2010, Almotairi 2010, and Thakur et al.

2006) highlighted this as being critically important. For each stated objective, and before

defining change requirements, a step was added to allow us to understand limitations and

assumptions before defining the CRM value statement.

Phase 1, Step 5: Develop the CRM value statement

Buttle and Maklan (2015) stated that senior management should define the CRM vision formed

as a result of internal employee and customer’s feedback. Accordingly, the ‘Develop the

vision’ step in their original framework was moved to ensure that goals, objectives, and CSFFs

were defined. In our work, separate value statements in terms of People, Process, Technology

and Channels (PPTC dimensions) are grouped relating to CRM implementation solution type,

i.e. operational, analytical, collaborative, and strategic. By dividing the vision into separate

PPTC statements, we can be more specific concerning customers’ needs, and therefore more

specific when guiding achievable/desirable CRM implementation functionality.

Phase Two - Establish the CRM Strategy Support Foundations

Phase 2, Step 1: Stakeholder analysis and governance structures

Stakeholder identification is key in phase 2 step 1 to define critical/key stakeholders for each

objective. During phase 2 step 1 we propose that the governance team should be defined, and

should include key stakeholders (see Figure 3).

Phase 2, Step 2: ‘To-Be’ requirements based-strategy analysis elicitation

People, process, technology and channel requirements, for each objective should be gathered

to ensure key stakeholders are engaged in requirements identification and analysis.

Phase 2, Step 3: Objective gap analysis level (validating the requirements)

Gap analysis defines the difference between current activity, i.e. ‘As-Is’ (identified in Phase 1

Step 2), and intended activity, i.e. ‘To-Be’ (defined in Phase 2 Step 2). Gap analysis is

positioned after requirements elicitation, as it is critical to know the requirements in order to

facilitate identification of change management needs.

11

Figure 3: Phase two establishing the CRM strategy support foundations

Phase 2, Step 4: Process mapping/requirements modelling

In Buttle and Maklan (2015) framework, this step was the third step. We moved the ‘Process

mapping/requirements modelling’ step to phase two in our framework. Modelling “To-Be”

requirements help communication and increase stakeholder awareness concerning CRM goals.

Phase 2, Step 5: Identify change management needs

Once all the “As-Is” and “To-Be” requirements have been modelled, change management

needs and capabilities are explicitly defined; allowing the definition of cost and resources.

Phase 2, Step 6: Identify project management needs and business case

‘Identify people, process technology and channel requirements’ and ‘Develop the business

case’ steps, which are present in Buttle and Maklan (2015) original strategy phase, have been

moved to phase two within our framework. All required changes should be translated into Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs) to support the objective development of a business case.

Phase 2, Step 7: Develop risk management plan

The risk management plan reveals the importance of searching for alternative plans and

scenarios in case of failure. To avoid metathesiophobia it is important to consider all change

requirements in order that risks and/or alternative solutions can be identified.

Phase 2, Step 8: Revise plan and determine technology needs

This step aims to report all the final requirements, their change needs, their costs, and their

benefits to senior management, all this information will also support the project team when

selecting the CRM vendor selection.

12

To gain a better understanding of UK HEI CRM activity and how artefact 1 needs to be adapted

for use in HEIs, we approached stakeholders, identified in JISC documents and conducted

semi-structured interviews. By tapping into the knowledge of the experience of implementers,

we sought to gain an in-depth understanding of CRM implementation success and failure in

HEIs.

5.2.Artefact 2 – Theoretical HEI CRM- Strategy Orientation Framework

CRM Document Analysis

The JISC project studied 27 specific CRM implementation cases. To gain value concerning

HEI CRM strategy orientation we analysed all JISC cases using thematic analysis. Thematic

analysis highlighted a number of questions: Who should contribute to the design of ‘To-Be’

processes? How do we define missing process components? How should we map ‘As-Is’ and

'To-Be' processes? How should we manage change towards ‘As-Is’ daily activities? How can

we link processes to the services provided by solution providers? In addition, analysis

highlighted that process mapping is critical to CRM strategy orientation, and CRM strategy

should be aligned with the university strategic goals in order to ensure management

commitment. To support implementation JISC developed the Self-Analysis Framework (SAF),

which was tested in twelve UK universities and one further education college. Thematic

analysis feedback concerning SAF implied that SAF’s lack of consideration concerning

strategic planning, communication, modelling, and change management was of considerable

concern; highlighting the need to consider these areas in our artefact development.

Interview Feedback

To gain a better understanding of HEI CRM activity we approached stakeholders identified in

JISC documents including academics and practitioners. Purposeful sampling was used to

ensure capture of information covering the main HEI CRM domains (i.e. students, business,

and alumni). Ten semi-structured interviews were carried out with six different roles described

in JISC case studies; including one vice chancellor (Participant 1), four project managers - two

concerned with Business to Business (B2B) projects (Participants 2 and 3), one concerned with

current student projects (Participant 4), and one concerned with marketing projects (Participant

5); two IT managers (Participants 6 and 7); and three CRM marketing mangers (Participants

8-10). Artefact one feedback was collected and thematically sorted. To guide artefact two the

following themes were identified:

Define strategic leadership - 70% of participants stated that top management should initiate

CRM projects. To ensure management support, it is important to define strategic leadership.

“It needs heads of department to push academics and administrators to use the system”

(Participant 2). As involvement of senior stakeholders increases the chance of long-term CRM

success, there is a need to identify senior people, at the pre-implementation stage, who are

willing to help define and formulate CRM goals and visions. “The technology, the hardware,

the software, is easy. It’s the people that are the most important and the most complex part of

implementing any large system over a large period of time. You’re going to have conflicts with

people, and between stakeholders, and it’s the management of that which is pivotal to the

success of any large project - especially a CRM system” (Participant 6).

Understanding the customer experience - Understanding customer needs/expectations allow

CRM strategy to focus on areas that maximise value creation. Some participants, however,

pointed out that “CRM strategy should not be based entirely on the student’s needs, because

13

there is no point in putting something in our strategy to say we will always respond within this

amount of time if it’s not physically possible” (Participant 3).

Lifecycle mapping - Considering processes, roles, events, activities, channels, and technology,

in the context of customer lifecycle is important. Participants, however, highlighted that

different customer groups need different solutions. “The undergraduate experience is very

different to the PG experience” (Participant 5). It is important that the ‘As-Is’ lifecycle of the

focal customer group/domain is clearly defined. CRM solutions can help the university

measure the customer experience at each lifecycle stage; to support evaluation and/or future

development. Accordingly, it is essential to understand, and focus on, customer

desires/expectations/needs to highlight service gaps.

Define CRM output - Participants highlighted a critical need to effectively scope the CRM

implementation. 80% of participants mentioned that having a CRM strategy, at the pre-

implementation stage is essential; thus implying that CRM strategy should be clear before

implementation. “For success, HEIs should use specific CRM systems to meet specifically

defined needs” (Participant 1). Participants stated that understanding the required time,

resources, effort, and change management limitations is critical to the definition of CRM

implementation scope. Participants implied that small scope projects regularly result in fast,

low risk, simple, and manageable outcomes and that large scope projects are more complex,

costly and risky; yet are more impactful if managed successfully.

Define strategic stakeholder groups - One participant mentioned that managing people is the

most important part of the implementation; as it improved project communication, strategic

leadership, and conflict resolution. “People are the most important and the most complex part

of implementing any large system” (Participant 6). 70% of participants defined the need to

have “sub-strategies for different sectors and customer groups”, i.e. to allow guidance of

activity in the context of different people groups (teaching, research, knowledge transfer etc.).

If CRM sub-strategies are defined for specific HEI domains, it is important to define what

stakeholders relate to specific sub-strategies.

Defining data owners – “The biggest problem was getting the right information into the system

in the first place, because without data, and trust in data, you can’t really do anything in CRM”

(Participant 8). Accordingly, defining the data owners is essential to identify data sources and

reduce the confusion of data migration.

Quantify customer needs – 90% of participants discussed the definition of CRM goals and

objectives. When formulating goals it is important to quantify needs, e.g. cost of resources, the

scope of the implementation, quality expectations, and time restrictions. A SMART criterion

was a point raised by half of the participants as a good approach to manage CRM objectives.

“If you have smart goals they become the guiding principles to work against” (Participant 2).

Rationalise project resources - Participants stated that, to obtain tangible and intangible

benefits, there is a need to explicitly allocate adequate resources, i.e. funds, people, time.

Appropriate consideration of human resources is key to resource consideration. “If there is a

lack of skilled personnel, the university will need to outsource to a provider, and manage that

relationship – that’s very tough” (Participant 10). Another participant raised the point that it is

sometimes difficult to determine the required resources at the beginning of the project;

14

emphasising the need to carefully scope the implementation. “I don’t think from the outset

people know what is really involved and how much resources the project will need”

(Participant 8). Although seemingly paradoxical, i.e. there is a need to ensure allocation of

resources yet no explicit resource allocation is clear; again, emphasising a need to explicitly

scope the implementation.

Selecting CRM solution vendor - Participants highlighted the need to define CRM needs before

selecting a CRM provider. Half of the participants discussed the importance of taking care

when selecting the CRM provider, with many suggesting that limitations in solution

functionality compromised project success. “It’s about being very careful about who you

select” (Participant 8), i.e. ensuring you understand the market options and only select the CRM

solution after extensive research. Definition of the implementation goals, objectives,

stakeholders, and CRM system requirements, in advance of CRM provider selection, is critical

to determine whether a CRM provider can satisfy the specific HEI needs.

Developing Artefact 2

Document analysis and practitioner interviews confirmed the need to keep all steps from

artefact one. To support the inclusion of additional considerations, however, the grouping and

positioning of stages are needed to be changed for application in HEIs (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Artefact 2 – HEIs CRM strategy orientation framework

Artefact 2, Step 1: Scoping CRM strategy stage

One of the key factors was the scoping of CRM strategy. Since the artefact 1 did not consider

scoping of strategy, this is explicitly added to artefact 2 entitled “Scoping CRM strategy”. This

stage is critical for HEIs due to the diversity in the outputs and focus within HEIs (i.e. teaching,

knowledge transfer, etc.), which drives a need for flexibility in the scoping approach; to ensure

that top management initiate the CRM strategy and management and customer

desires/expectations/needs are considered; to decompose HEI outputs, since different domains

require service delivery for different beneficiary recipients (e.g. prospective, student,

businesses, academic staff, alumni etc.); artefact 2 interview participants supported the idea of

defining smaller domain specific CRM focused solutions, i.e. to simplify implementation and

maximise the benefit gained from allocation of resources; as there is limited consideration of

15

methods to help identify and analyse the stakeholders, i.e. to help define the people who will

have an interactive relationship with, and manage, the customer experience; due to the

increasing trend towards customer-centricity in HEIs, i.e. to dynamically appreciate customer

needs/expectations requirements, and adapt university activities around these requirements; as

there is an increasing focus placed on the importance of the customer experience as a critical

element for university strategy and assessment, e.g. national student survey impacting HEI

ranking.

Scoping aims to define the focal problem output, thus ensuring the CRM implementation

focuses on areas perceived to be ‘of importance’; define and analyse stakeholders involved in

the specific domain/output, in order to understand the scope of influence; segment customers

into semantically relevant groups, identifying strategically important clients; define the

stakeholder's Desires/Expectations/Needs (DEN); minimise risk, scope shift, and maximise

change management (Chen and Popovich 2003) enabling iterative, manageable and focused

CRM implementation; align the DENs from stakeholders are and to agree on strategic ones.

Artefact 2, Step 2: Analysing CRM requirements in HEIs

60% of the interviews highlighted the importance of mapping ‘As-Is’ and ‘To-Be’ processes

to understand whether current Processes, Roles, Events- Activities, Communications,

Technology (PRE-ACT) components are satisfactory. To map ‘As-Is’ and ‘To-Be’ CRM

requirements, analysing CRM requirements in HEIs stage was added to our framework to map

the client DEN in the current “As-Is” and map this onto the “To-Be” methods; identify any

missing requirements, i.e. DEN that cannot be effectively mapped onto “To-Be” CRM

components; check whether the university can already meet the missing requirements

internally, i.e. services provided elsewhere that would meet DEN. If the university cannot meet

these DENs, then change is needed to facilitate the creation of the new services.

Artefact 2, Step 3: Modelling the strategic DENs

Document analysis highlighted a need to model strategy components (PRE-ACT); hence an

explicit stage entitled “DENs requirements modelling” was added to artefact 2.

Artefact 2, Step 4: Diagnosing service quality (bottom-up) for strategic DEN in HEIs

The ‘Diagnosing service quality’ stage evolved from the stage 2, phase 1, i.e. ‘Diagnose current

CRM strategy’. Evidence from both the document analysis and interview data suggested that

there is a need to understand the perspective of strategic clients. Document analysis highlighted

a need to add a ‘feedback from clients’ stage. Interview participants also defined a need to take

into account the client’s perspectives when developing CRM strategy. If services are not

gaining positive feedback, then redesign of services is required. Iteration should continue until

positive feedback is gained.

Artefact 2, Step 5: Mapping/matching CRM solution types with defined Gaps

60% of participants suggested using SMART criteria when developing HEI CRM objectives.

SMART KPIs should be linked to CRM goals and CRM implementation solution types to

facilitate measurement of implementation success. Once strategic DENs are aligned, we can

link the university requirements with the most suitable technological solutions, which facilitate

satisfaction of CRM value statements.

16

5.3.Artefact 3 – Evaluated HEI CRM Strategy Orientation Framework

To evaluate artefact 2, and facilitate the development of artefact 3, we conducted an expert

focus group. Five practitioner participants were included in the expert focus group. Purposeful

and convenience sampling was used to capture relevant information. Experts included: a

usability and enterprise architecture consultant/researcher (Participant A); an academic with

extensive knowledge in enterprise systems and human computing (Participant B); a researcher

with extensive knowledge of MIS, e-commerce, and technology acceptance (Participant C); a

researcher with experience in business processes and MIS (Participant D); a consultant with

extensive knowledge in process mapping and modelling (Participant E). All experts had

extensive experience of HEIs and IS implementation. Feedback from experts is presented

below:

Artefact 3, Step 1 - All participants understood the reasoning behind scoping, and agreed its

significance as the first stage. Participants questioned how strategic clients were defined and

prioritised, and suggested that additional information is needed to support understanding the

difference between desires, expectations and needs. “It would be good if you integrate the steps

with examples” (Participant B).

Artefact 3, Step 2 - The lifecycle approach was appreciated by participants. “This consideration

will help the HEI define a lifecycle for clients” (Participant A). Participants liked the idea of

mapping CRM requirements and “To-Be” processes, i.e. “to ensure all requirements are met”

(Participant E). Although the participants liked the idea of mapping the CRM requirements to

“To-Be”, i.e. to ensure all requirements are met, they suggest having “Identity Documents

(IDs) and different versions of the life cycles” (Participant E).

Artefact 3, Step 3 - All participants stated that Unified Modelling Language (UML) and

Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) are insufficient to link strategic goals and

operational activity. IS experts suggested the use of ArchiMate. “ArchiMate has strategic and

operational elements that would allow you to link strategic (business), operational

(application), and technical levels” (Participant A). Caution was raised, however, that

contextual justification must be considered. “You don’t want to say ‘use ArchiMate’, as it may

change” (Participant C).

Artefact 3, Step 4 - Whilst all IS experts supported measurement of service quality; they asked

how service quality would be measured. “How does that relate to CRM quality and activities?”

(Participant B). Experts stated that “CRM is about how customers perceive their experience of

the service” (Participant B).

Artefact 3, Step 5 - Participants found the fifth stage very useful in terms of formulating

SMART CRM goals; i.e. linking measurable KPIs, and connecting needs to one or more CRM

types. Participants, however, mention the need to “prioritise the solutions” (Participant C).

“Universities only have a certain amount of money, and can’t buy everything they need”

(Participant A). Participants identified that “you will never find a perfect solution”. In that vein,

participant 4 recommended “ordering the gaps”, i.e. weighting them based on the strategic

DENs and/or business KPI. In addition, expert participants suggested adding return paths to

stages 1, 2 and 4, i.e. in case of problems need to be resolved (see Figure 5).

17

Developing Artefact 3

Expert feedback provided insightful evaluation points, which were used to guide artefact 3

developments (see Figure 5). As a result of feedback, the final CRM-SOS framework is able

to connect strategic HEIs drivers to the low-level requirements through actionable sub-steps.

Figure 5 presents the framework with a flow following the solid arrows. The first stage scopes

and aligns the CRM strategy with the university strategy and customer DENs. The outcome is

the aligned and agreed on DEN list. The second step analyses DENs requirements (PRE-ACT)

to map requirements within the client interaction lifecycle. The outcome of this stage defines

any new or missed PRE-ACT that need to be designed. The third step models DEN using an

appropriate modelling language. The fourth stage measures the quality of the “To-Be” DENs

requirements to identify DEN requirement quality gaps. The final stage prioritises gaps by

considering CRM types, in order to formulate SMART CRM goals, develop risk management

plans, and assess the system performance. The inclusion of high-level iteration facilitates

flexibility, personalisation of stages, and quality tracking of changes. For example, the

framework is designed for use by universities that want to launch CRM implementations,

however, the framework could be personalised to support HEIs that have already implemented

CRM solutions in their university; especially to help diagnose their current CRM strategy

situation starting from the second stage. The framework can be used to personalise the stages

until they fit the strategic outputs and match the top management KPIs, while tracking any

change that might influence the steps, flow, or content.

Figure 5: Artefact 3 HEI CRM Strategy Orientation Support framework; including iteration and

optional modelling flow

6. Conclusion

HEI managers should be involved in the CRM project implementation, especially at the pre-

implementation stage, when buy-in and coordination are significant. Strategic CRM in HEIs

should be planned and implemented in focused areas. If scoped implementation is successful,

then the solution can be expanded; taking into account local strategic desires, expectations, and

18

needs. The CRM-SOS framework should be used by the internal analyst/project-manager with

some help, as appropriate, from external consultants.

Although generic CRM implementation frameworks have been defined, we highlighted a need

for a HEI specific framework to support pre-implementation CRM strategy orientation. In this

paper, using design science as a method, we iteratively develop the CRM Strategy Orientation

Support (CRM-SOS) framework for use strategically and practically by HEIs. Artefact 1

combined and incorporated theoretical factors that influence CRM strategy orientation;

facilitating the generation of a generic CRM strategy orientation framework. Evaluation of

artefact 1 , using document analysis and semi-structured interviews, helped define HEI specific

requirements; supporting the development of artefact 2 which was evaluated by practitioner

focus groups. Specialists defined artefact stages as logical in the context of a practical IS

implementation. As a result of expert feedback, artefact 3 was developed for use by HEIs .

HEIs are complex organisations, and although additional work is required to consider relevant

implementation methods, for use with segmented HEI customers, the proposed CRM-SOS

framework offers considerable practical pre-implementation support to help implementers

avoid CRM failure in HEIs, whilst maximising the strategic value return for both HEIs and

customers. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has examined these concepts/flows

using multiple evaluations, nor have previous frameworks highlighting the importance of

practical implementation methods/techniques for use strategically in HEIs.

References

Almotairi, M. (2010). Evaluation of the Implementation of CRM in Developing Countries. PhD

thesis, University of Brunel.

Bagheri, A. and Beheshti, M. (2010). Exploitation of CRM for Strategic Marketing in Higher

Education: Creating a Knowledge-based CRM Framework for Swedish Universities .Master

Thesis, Jönköping University.

Biczysko, D. (2010). CRM solutions for Education. In: Jałowiecki, P., and Orłowski, A. ed.

2010. Information Systems in Management, Distant Learning and Web Solutions for Education

and Business. WULS Press, Warsaw, 1st edition: 18-29.

Binsardi, A. and Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: research

on the students' perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning,

21(5): 318-327.

Bligh, P. and Turk, D. (2004). CRM Unplugged Releasing CRM’s Strategic Value. John Wiley

& Sons, Inc.

Buttle, F. and Maklan, S. (2015). Customer Relationship Management: Concepts and

Technologies. Routledge.

Cambra-Fierro, J.J. Centeno, E. Olavarria, A. and Vazquez-Carrasco, R. (2017). Success

factors in a CRM strategy: technology is not all. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(4): 316-

333.

19

Coltman, T. (2007). Why build a customer relationship management capability?. The Journal

of Strategic Information Systems. 16(3): 301-320.

Chambers, D. and Paull, A. (2008). Landscape Study of Student Lifecycle Relationship

Management, JISC report. Available from:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/jos/slrm_report.pdf. [Accessed 2nd June

2012].

Chen, I. J. and Popovich, K. (2003). Understanding customer relationship management (CRM)

People, process and technology. Business Process Management Journal. 9(5): 672-688.

Daradoumis, T. Rodríguez-Ardura, I. Tibidabo, Faulin, J. Juan, A. Xhafa, F. and Martínez-

López, F. (2010). CRM applied to higher education: developing an e-monitoring system to

improve relationships in e-learning environments. International Journal of Services

Technology and Management. 14 (1): 103-125.

Grant, G. and Anderson, G. (2002). Customer relationship management: a vision for higher

education. In: Katz, R. (Ed.). Web Portals and Higher Education: Technologies to Make IT

Personal. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York: 23-32.

Green, D. (1994). What is quality in higher education? Concepts, policy and practice. In Green,

D. (Ed.), 1994, What is Quality in Higher Education?, Buckingham, Open University Press

and Society for Research into Higher Education: 3–20.

Greenberg, P. (2010). CRM at the Speed of Light: Social CRM Strategies, Tools, and

Techniques for Engaging Your Customers. Fourth Ed, the McGraw-Hill Companies.

Gummesson, E. (2009). Total Relationship Marketing. 2nd ed, Oxford, Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Kaiser, F. Meer, P. Beverwijk, J. Klemperer, A. Steunenberg, B. and Wageningen, B. (1999).

Market type mechanisms in higher education / a comparative analysis of their occurrence and

discussions on the issue in five higher education systems. Thematic report. VI: 12-37.

Kirkby, J. (2002). Developing a CRM Vision and Strategy. (A1, CRM31). Gartner group. CRM

Summit: Moving from Disillusionment to Real Value. Hotel Sofitel Paris Forum Rive Gauche

22–23 May. Available from: http://www.mycustomer.com/files/siftmedia-

mycustomer/gartner-005.pdf. [Accessed 2nd Oct 2014].

Kotler, P. and Fox, K. F. (1985). Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. Prentice-

Hall.

Kumar, M. (2010). Impact of CRM in mechanizing university’s process, business and

productivity. Global Journal of Enterprise Information System. 2 (2): 43-48.

Lávanya, T. (2011). Customer relationship management and higher education -a vision.

Advances in Management. 4 (3): 18-20.

20

Lagrosen, S. Seyyed-Hashemi, R. and Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimensions of

quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education. 12(2): 61-69.

Leigh, T. W. and Tanner, J. F. (2004). Introduction: JPSSM special issue on customer

relationship management. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. 24(4): 259-262.

Lindgreen, A. Palmerb, R. Vanhammec, J. and Wouters, J. (2006). A relationship management

assessment tool: Questioning, identifying, and prioritizing critical aspects of customer

relationships. Industrial Marketing Management. 35 (1): 57-71.

Harvey, L. and Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming Higher Education, ERIC.

Hanover Research. (2010). Customer Satisfaction Measures– Academy Administration

Practice. Available from:

http://www.planning.salford.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/20669/Customer-Satisfaction-

Measures-Membership.pdf. [Accessed 23 Oct 2014].

Haywood, M. Nixon, I. Bowden, A. and Bell, R. (2007). Study of Customer Relationship

Management (CRM) Issues in UK Higher Education Institutions. JISC reports . Available

from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/themes/bce/crmstudyfinalreport20070817.pd.

[Accessed 3rd Nov 2012].

Hemsley-Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace:

A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of

Public Sector Management. 19 (4): 316-338.

Magana, A. and Whitehead, M. (2010). Implementing Sugar CRM: 5.x.Install, Configure, and

Administer a Robust Customer Relationship Management System Using SugarCRM. Packt,

p12.

Mattheou, D. and Saiti, A. (2005). The organisation of academic work and university

administration: a qualitative study from Greece. Conference on Trends in the Management of

Human Resources in Higher Education. Available from:

http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/35327298.pdf. [Accesed 2nd Jan 2012].

Mellors-Bourne, R. Metcalfe, J. Pearce, E. and Hooley, T. (2014). Understanding the

Recruitment and Selection of Postgraduate Researchers by English Higher Education

Institutions. Report to HEFCE by CRAC/Vitae and iCeGS. Available from

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/20948/1/2014_pgrrecruitment.pdf Accessed 5th November 2014].

Nair, C. Chan, S. and Fang, X. (2007). Adoption of CRM in Higher Education. IRMA

International Conference: 221-224.

Neville, K. Adam, F. and McCormack, C. (2002). Mentoring distance learners: an action

research study. ECIS. Proceedings Conference: 1410-1421.

21

O'Regan, S. (2010). CRM for Future Skills in Creative Industries in West London: Overview

of the Self-Analysis Framework. [Online]. Available at:

http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/images/2/24/RoehamptonCaseStudyandAppendices.pdf. [Accessed: 8th

November 2013].

Payne, A. (2005). Handbook of CRM: Achieving Excellence in Customer Management.

Butterworth-Heinemann: 23-24.

Payne, A. and Frow, P. (2005). A strategic framework for customer relationship management.

Journal of Marketing. 69(4): 167-176.

Peppers, D. and Rogers, M. (2004). Managing customer relationships: A strategic framework.

John Wiley & Sons.

Perry, S. Corley, L. and Hollins, P. (2011). Relationship Management in UK Higher and

Further Education – An Overview. [Online]Available at

http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/images/a/a2/JISC_CETIS_RMSAS_Project_RM_Programme_Phase_1

_Synthesis.pdf. [Accessed 11th November 2013].

Rigo, G.E. Pedron, C.D. Caldeira, M. and Araújo, C.D. (2016). CRM adoption in a higher

education institution. JISTEM-Journal of Information Systems and Technology

Management. 13(1): 45-60.

Rigby. D. and Ledingham, D. (2004). CRM done right. Harvard Business Review. November:

p.11.

Saitia, A. and Prokopiadou, G. (2008). Post-graduate students and learning environments:

Users’ perceptions regarding the choice of information sources. The International Information

& Library Review. 40 (2): 94–103.

Seeman, D.E. and O'Hara, M. (2006). Customer relationship management in higher education:

Using information systems to improve the student-school relationship. Campus - Wide

Information Systems. 23 (1): 24-34.

Seligman, J. and Taylor, J. (2009). Customer Experience Management in UK Higher Education

a Mixed Methods Study. ANZMAC, Melbourne.Available from:

http://www.duplication.net.au/ANZMAC09/papers/ANZMAC2009-405.pdf. [Accessed 4th

Jan 2013].

Thakur, R. Summey, J.H. and Balasubramanian, S. K. (2006). CRM as strategy: avoiding the

pitfall of tactics. Marketing Management Journal. 16 (2): 147-154.

Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler, B. (2004). Design Research in Information Systems. AIS: January

20.

Wali, A.F. and Wright, L.T. (2016). Customer relationship management and service quality:

Influences in higher education. Journal of Customer Behavior. 15(1): 67-79.

22

Wali, A. F. Wright, L. T. Nwokah, N. G. and Reynolds, P. (2015). Customer relationship

management and service quality: a qualitative study. EURAM 2015 (European Academy of

Management) Conference. Available from:

http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/25053/1/1145Customer_Relationship_Management_and_Service_Qu

ality_Performance__a_qualitative_study.pdf. [Accessed 5th November 2013], pp.1-20.